A policeman from Indonesia who lost all three of his daughters and his wife during the 2004 tsunami (which ravaged Indonesia and ten other nations in the region) experienced a miracle when his new wife gave birth to triplets in Banda Aceh--all daughters.
I hope they all survive too.
Even though it's out of the international news for the most part, vast areas of Southeast Asia remain devastated; the people there are still suffering from lack of basic necessities and mourning their dead, so it's encouraging when news like this comes out of the disaster area.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Al Gore Needs to Practice What He Preaches: His Energy Use is Off the Scale
How's this for an inconvenient truth (about Al Gore)?
He's the undisputed King of Hypocrisy and hubris! And yet, the press is totally ignoring Mr. panic monger's using more energy and gas in one month than "...an average American family does...in one year."
Oink!! Oink!!
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Democrats Shouldn't Limit U.S. Military Mission in Iraq: Very Bad Move in the Making
The latest Democratic proposal for Iraq has the scope of the U.S. military's role reduced to fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, training the Iraqi security forces, and helping Iraq to secure it's borders.
A question for the Democratic brain trusts in Washington before they even think of moving forward on this legislation:
How does one identify an al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) member? They won't be wearing name badges or wearing black t-shirts with big lettering that identify them as a member of that particular group. Last time anyone checked, they wear civilian clothing.
If they limit the U.S. military to fighting AQI alone, what about Ansar al-Islam, the Mahdi Army, the Tawhad and Khalid bin Al Walid Brigade, Al-Istikhbarat al-Askariyya, Fedayeen Saddam, Izz al-Din al-Qassam Forces/Hamas members, plus the dozens of local insurgent groups who are striking at U.S. targets in Iraq?
To attempt to bind the hands of our troops is a very bad idea. That has already happened through political mismanagement of the war through November of last year; this would be an even bigger mistake.
That's not even bringing up the constitutional issues that will arise between Congress and the White House if Congress attempts to circumvent Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.
If they want to revise their 2002 vote on the war, they can have at it.
But attempting to micromanage the war by binding the hands of the military in what it can and cannot do in Iraq is an overreach of Congress on one hand, and a grave mistake on the other.
A question for the Democratic brain trusts in Washington before they even think of moving forward on this legislation:
How does one identify an al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) member? They won't be wearing name badges or wearing black t-shirts with big lettering that identify them as a member of that particular group. Last time anyone checked, they wear civilian clothing.
If they limit the U.S. military to fighting AQI alone, what about Ansar al-Islam, the Mahdi Army, the Tawhad and Khalid bin Al Walid Brigade, Al-Istikhbarat al-Askariyya, Fedayeen Saddam, Izz al-Din al-Qassam Forces/Hamas members, plus the dozens of local insurgent groups who are striking at U.S. targets in Iraq?
To attempt to bind the hands of our troops is a very bad idea. That has already happened through political mismanagement of the war through November of last year; this would be an even bigger mistake.
That's not even bringing up the constitutional issues that will arise between Congress and the White House if Congress attempts to circumvent Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.
If they want to revise their 2002 vote on the war, they can have at it.
But attempting to micromanage the war by binding the hands of the military in what it can and cannot do in Iraq is an overreach of Congress on one hand, and a grave mistake on the other.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Polls Find Adults are Scaring Young Kids About Global Warming
A recent poll in the UK has found that 50% of kids aged 7-11 are losing sleep over global warming concerns.
The article takes the side of the global warming crowd, while ignoring the detrimental effect that unfounded worries are taking on kids, if the poll is correct.
Adults need to moderate their global warming rhetoric when explaining it to elementary aged children. If these kids are losing sleep over something as politicized and misrepresented as global warming is, then the adults who are teaching these kids about global warming have gone way over the line and contributed to childhood anxiety over a naturally occurring process with a human (and COW) component.
The more brainwashing that global warming people do to children at a young age, the less likely they will be able to absorb new information about global warming once we do (finally) get rock-hard evidence that will directly contradict parts of current global warming propaganda.
These children won't believe it because they've been politicized and brainwashed into believing the propaganda from the get-go. That's wrong, and very dangerous.
People who believe global warming can be stopped are hopelessly stupid. Save the planet, my afterburner. But a seven-year-old can't tell the fact from the stupidity. Shame, shame, shame.
The article takes the side of the global warming crowd, while ignoring the detrimental effect that unfounded worries are taking on kids, if the poll is correct.
Adults need to moderate their global warming rhetoric when explaining it to elementary aged children. If these kids are losing sleep over something as politicized and misrepresented as global warming is, then the adults who are teaching these kids about global warming have gone way over the line and contributed to childhood anxiety over a naturally occurring process with a human (and COW) component.
The more brainwashing that global warming people do to children at a young age, the less likely they will be able to absorb new information about global warming once we do (finally) get rock-hard evidence that will directly contradict parts of current global warming propaganda.
These children won't believe it because they've been politicized and brainwashed into believing the propaganda from the get-go. That's wrong, and very dangerous.
People who believe global warming can be stopped are hopelessly stupid. Save the planet, my afterburner. But a seven-year-old can't tell the fact from the stupidity. Shame, shame, shame.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
British Begin Pullout as Shiite Civil War Rages in Southern Iraq: If That's the New Measure of Success, We Should Pull Out of Baghdad Immediately
British Prime Minister Tony Blair went on British national TV and announced that 1,600 British soldiers will be out of Iraq by the end of summer. Blair and the White House said separately that success was the main reason that the British were able to begin pulling their army out.
Success?
Last time anyone looked, there was a full-scale Shiite civil war raging all around the British sector, which is centered around Basra. The Mahdi Army is trying to conquer the area for Muqtada al-Sadr and the British are claiming success?
If a civil war is the new measure of success, then why are we sending more troops to Baghdad while the British are beginning to pull out of southern Iraq? What??! What??! Baghdad isn't screwed up enough yet??! Oh. OK.
This war is getting stranger and stranger every day. Now utter disasters are being claimed as successes.
Success?
Last time anyone looked, there was a full-scale Shiite civil war raging all around the British sector, which is centered around Basra. The Mahdi Army is trying to conquer the area for Muqtada al-Sadr and the British are claiming success?
If a civil war is the new measure of success, then why are we sending more troops to Baghdad while the British are beginning to pull out of southern Iraq? What??! What??! Baghdad isn't screwed up enough yet??! Oh. OK.
This war is getting stranger and stranger every day. Now utter disasters are being claimed as successes.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Murtha's Proposal Intrudes on Separation of Powers; The President in CinC, Not Murtha and Not Congress
Congressman Jack Murtha is announcing plans to put all kinds of conditions on what the military must do in order to get money that's been allocated to waging war in Iraq.
They include: one year of training for any soldier designated for a combat tour in Iraq, one year time limit in Iraq with no extensions, no soldier goes to Iraq unless fully trained and fully equipped, and one year between combat tours.
These are great ideas, but there's only one problem. These ideas should be coming from the Constitutionally recognized Commander in Chief.
That's not Jack Murtha; nor is it any of his colleagues in Congress. It's the President of the United States.
Congress does have the power of the purse, but only to the point of a "yes" or "no" vote to spending bills of their or the President's creation. That means if the majority of Congress wants to pass a spending bill that funds the military but ends funding for the Iraq War, they can do so at will.
But these conditions (which I do like) cannot be made by Congress as to how the war is waged and how military personnel are moved around. That falls into the President's jurisdiction.
Murtha ought to push for President Bush to adopt these "suggestions" as military policy, and get to the main event of the Democratic agenda that they keep denying: their intent to de-fund the war itself (which I think is unwise at this point).
There's got to be a better way to expressing displeasure with the President than feeding parts of the Constitution into a paper shredder. Bush did it first (equal protection), now Congress wants to do it too.
THROW THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
They include: one year of training for any soldier designated for a combat tour in Iraq, one year time limit in Iraq with no extensions, no soldier goes to Iraq unless fully trained and fully equipped, and one year between combat tours.
These are great ideas, but there's only one problem. These ideas should be coming from the Constitutionally recognized Commander in Chief.
That's not Jack Murtha; nor is it any of his colleagues in Congress. It's the President of the United States.
Congress does have the power of the purse, but only to the point of a "yes" or "no" vote to spending bills of their or the President's creation. That means if the majority of Congress wants to pass a spending bill that funds the military but ends funding for the Iraq War, they can do so at will.
But these conditions (which I do like) cannot be made by Congress as to how the war is waged and how military personnel are moved around. That falls into the President's jurisdiction.
Murtha ought to push for President Bush to adopt these "suggestions" as military policy, and get to the main event of the Democratic agenda that they keep denying: their intent to de-fund the war itself (which I think is unwise at this point).
There's got to be a better way to expressing displeasure with the President than feeding parts of the Constitution into a paper shredder. Bush did it first (equal protection), now Congress wants to do it too.
THROW THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
Sunni Terror Groups Strike At Iranian Government: Islamic Press Claims Bombs Were Manufactured in U.S.
A radical Sunni terror group launched a series of terror attacks in and around the city of Zahedan, Iran, over the last week, killing Revolutionary Guard militia members and prompting the Islamic press to claim that the bombs were American built.
That idea is ludicrous as Iran makes it's own bombs and has a black market for those Iranian bombs. It's more likely that they were Iranian-built bombs bought on Iran's black market, which has also supplied weapons to Iraqi insurgents too.
This is the Iranian press and government trying to blame their terrorist problems on other governments, despite Tehran's probable involvement in training these terrorists for action in Iraq. They didn't take into account the possibility that their terror trainees were going to take their weapons and use them on the people who are their real enemies--the Iranian military.
That's as good an explanation as Iran's, and probably not far off the mark either.
In any case, Iran should go bark up it's own tree.
That idea is ludicrous as Iran makes it's own bombs and has a black market for those Iranian bombs. It's more likely that they were Iranian-built bombs bought on Iran's black market, which has also supplied weapons to Iraqi insurgents too.
This is the Iranian press and government trying to blame their terrorist problems on other governments, despite Tehran's probable involvement in training these terrorists for action in Iraq. They didn't take into account the possibility that their terror trainees were going to take their weapons and use them on the people who are their real enemies--the Iranian military.
That's as good an explanation as Iran's, and probably not far off the mark either.
In any case, Iran should go bark up it's own tree.
Practice of Extending Tours of Duty in War Zones Must End: It's Not Helping Military Families That Are on Verge of Breaking Apart
Every time a military unit is sent into a war zone, there is a spike in the number of divorces in the unit, or problems at home involving children get worse. Extensions of these tours of duty make bad situations even worse and push borderline families over the edge. It has to stop.
Military families are suffering already; some of these soldiers need to get home immediately and get their kids and families back on an even keel. And they need to see to their own physical and mental health too.
Extending tours is not good policy; and while some of the soldiers may not mind it, their families certainly do.
If we are sending these troops to Iraq or Afghanistan for one year, then they should go for one year and then come back, regardless of the security situation. If anything, we should be shortening their stays---sending them over for one year, then bringing them back ahead of schedule.
That plan wouldn't work with the current rotation plan and troop levels, but it's something they really ought to look at and make alterations to accommodate it. And if that means pulling out 60,000 troops this year to increase the size of the soldier pool available for future rotations, then they should do it.
Something has to change, and soon.
Military families are suffering already; some of these soldiers need to get home immediately and get their kids and families back on an even keel. And they need to see to their own physical and mental health too.
Extending tours is not good policy; and while some of the soldiers may not mind it, their families certainly do.
If we are sending these troops to Iraq or Afghanistan for one year, then they should go for one year and then come back, regardless of the security situation. If anything, we should be shortening their stays---sending them over for one year, then bringing them back ahead of schedule.
That plan wouldn't work with the current rotation plan and troop levels, but it's something they really ought to look at and make alterations to accommodate it. And if that means pulling out 60,000 troops this year to increase the size of the soldier pool available for future rotations, then they should do it.
Something has to change, and soon.
JetBlue Incident Shows (Again) That a "Passenger Bill of Rights" is Needed When Bad Weather Shuts Down Airports
Last week's monster snow and ice storm exposed a glaring weakness in the airline industry that should have been dealt with already, but hasn't been.
Passengers aboard some JetBlue Airways jets were forced to sit for close to ten hours in jets that couldn't take off as the storm shut down JFK International Airport. The aircraft were parked on the taxiway waiting for clearance to take off and hours went by.
Many of the aircraft didn't have food or water on board and the doors had to be opened every ten minutes to let fresh air into the passenger cabins. Still more hours went by. Finally buses arrived to take the passengers off the planes and return them to the terminal, which should have happened hours before. I can't imagine waiting ten hours for a plane to take off.
JetBlue offered free tickets, discounts and other bonuses to their captive passengers once they were back in the terminal. Analysts called the move "smart." JetBlue also announced that they were introducing a passenger bill of rights on their own.
Other airlines are refusing to do so; they would rather have dissatisfied customers vote with their feet, which leaves them free to take their passengers hostage in the meantime. They shouldn't be waylaying people like that.
It's a wonder that the passengers didn't try to seize control of the jet in their frustration.
Passengers aboard some JetBlue Airways jets were forced to sit for close to ten hours in jets that couldn't take off as the storm shut down JFK International Airport. The aircraft were parked on the taxiway waiting for clearance to take off and hours went by.
Many of the aircraft didn't have food or water on board and the doors had to be opened every ten minutes to let fresh air into the passenger cabins. Still more hours went by. Finally buses arrived to take the passengers off the planes and return them to the terminal, which should have happened hours before. I can't imagine waiting ten hours for a plane to take off.
JetBlue offered free tickets, discounts and other bonuses to their captive passengers once they were back in the terminal. Analysts called the move "smart." JetBlue also announced that they were introducing a passenger bill of rights on their own.
Other airlines are refusing to do so; they would rather have dissatisfied customers vote with their feet, which leaves them free to take their passengers hostage in the meantime. They shouldn't be waylaying people like that.
It's a wonder that the passengers didn't try to seize control of the jet in their frustration.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Judge in Anna Nicole Smith Case Needs to Be Replaced Immediately: He's Worse than the OJ Simpson Judge
The judge in Florida who is in charge of handling where Anna Nicole Smith is buried is a cowboy and needs to be replaced.
CourtTV was shaking it's head in confusion this morning over what the judge was allowing the attorneys to say, and refusing to rule on a single objection that was raised as the various motions were filed. He's also talking more about himself than he is the case. Who cares about his college career and his job as a substitute teacher?
It's not his job to educate the TV audience in the finer points of Florida custody law; he knows what the law is; the attorneys do too; that is his audience.
His sole job is to rule on where Anna Nicole is buried; the paternity issue for Smith's infant daughter is being handled by another court but he wants to rule on that too and attempted to take jurisdiction over the California case, setting up a jurisdiction battle with the court in California.
In my opinion, this type of showboating hasn't been seen since Judge Ito's clumsy handling of the OJ Simpson murder trial in California.
Someone needs to take charge in that Florida court room; the judge sure isn't.
CourtTV was shaking it's head in confusion this morning over what the judge was allowing the attorneys to say, and refusing to rule on a single objection that was raised as the various motions were filed. He's also talking more about himself than he is the case. Who cares about his college career and his job as a substitute teacher?
It's not his job to educate the TV audience in the finer points of Florida custody law; he knows what the law is; the attorneys do too; that is his audience.
His sole job is to rule on where Anna Nicole is buried; the paternity issue for Smith's infant daughter is being handled by another court but he wants to rule on that too and attempted to take jurisdiction over the California case, setting up a jurisdiction battle with the court in California.
In my opinion, this type of showboating hasn't been seen since Judge Ito's clumsy handling of the OJ Simpson murder trial in California.
Someone needs to take charge in that Florida court room; the judge sure isn't.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Anna Nicole Smith Nightmare: An Example of an Estate Fight
The Anna Nicole Smith case that is currently raging in courtrooms in Los Angeles, Florida, and in the Bahamas are examples of why everyone who has underage children, or any assets, or wishes regarding where they are buried should be spelled out in precise detail in a current will.
Granted, the Smith case(s) are an extreme example of why this is a good idea.
I don't even want to talk about all the people coming out of the woodwork claiming to be the father of Smith's infant daughter, other than to say that it's disgusting, or Anna Nicole's occupation or life choices in becoming the type of star that she was.
But there definitely are lessons to be drawn out of this.
The Smith case has been turned on it's head due to an outdated will which names her deceased twenty-year-old son as the sole beneficiary, while not mentioning her new daughter (or husband/boyfriend/whatever) at all. It did not specify where she was to be buried. It was not filed in court, which the lawyers immediately attacked.
It does give Howard K. Stern, the legal father of Anna Nicole's infant daughter and executor of the will, power to settle some of these issues pending legal challenges.
Then there are the attorneys: Anna Nicole's mom has one, Howard K. Stern has at least one and IS one, all the prospective fathers (sickening) who are seeking custody of the infant, the prosecuting attorneys in at least two jurisdictions who are conducting criminal investigations, all in court arguing with the judge. It's mass confusion.
It's really sad to see a situation this bad played out on CourtTV and on E! and all the networks, but hopefully it causes at least one family that hasn't planned anything to get started and to maintain their plans with their changing life situations. The Anna Nicole situation is sad, and rotten to the core, but some lessons from this spectacle can be taken from it.
Estate fights can get as nasty as this one, especially when an entire legion of competing attorneys get involved, and vast fortunes are involved, or custody of wealthy heirs are in question, or there's any question of custody at all.
That's why families should spend some time getting end-of-life issues resolved before it is a problem. That's the most valuable lesson to be taken from this celebrity situation.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
Granted, the Smith case(s) are an extreme example of why this is a good idea.
I don't even want to talk about all the people coming out of the woodwork claiming to be the father of Smith's infant daughter, other than to say that it's disgusting, or Anna Nicole's occupation or life choices in becoming the type of star that she was.
But there definitely are lessons to be drawn out of this.
The Smith case has been turned on it's head due to an outdated will which names her deceased twenty-year-old son as the sole beneficiary, while not mentioning her new daughter (or husband/boyfriend/whatever) at all. It did not specify where she was to be buried. It was not filed in court, which the lawyers immediately attacked.
It does give Howard K. Stern, the legal father of Anna Nicole's infant daughter and executor of the will, power to settle some of these issues pending legal challenges.
Then there are the attorneys: Anna Nicole's mom has one, Howard K. Stern has at least one and IS one, all the prospective fathers (sickening) who are seeking custody of the infant, the prosecuting attorneys in at least two jurisdictions who are conducting criminal investigations, all in court arguing with the judge. It's mass confusion.
It's really sad to see a situation this bad played out on CourtTV and on E! and all the networks, but hopefully it causes at least one family that hasn't planned anything to get started and to maintain their plans with their changing life situations. The Anna Nicole situation is sad, and rotten to the core, but some lessons from this spectacle can be taken from it.
Estate fights can get as nasty as this one, especially when an entire legion of competing attorneys get involved, and vast fortunes are involved, or custody of wealthy heirs are in question, or there's any question of custody at all.
That's why families should spend some time getting end-of-life issues resolved before it is a problem. That's the most valuable lesson to be taken from this celebrity situation.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Democrats Rule By Opinion Poll: This is Worse Than Trying to Replace Something With Nothing
The Democrats appear to be heading in an unprecedented direction in their control of both houses of Congress. And many Republicans are following their example. And it's going to come around and bite them when they least expect it.
I speak of opinion polls. Many in Congress are bending like reeds in the wind when they hear what the latest opinion polls are. John Kerry was notorious for this during the 2004 Presidential election, refusing to say where he stood on issues until he saw which direction the wind was blowing first.
Many other Democrats did this too, refusing to say where they stood until they figured out which direction their voters were leaning, then all of a sudden coming up with all kinds of sound bites that their people wanted to hear.
Politicians are well aware of this, but the public needs to learn that opinion polls reflect the feelings of people based on the information that they've been made aware of. In other words, it's stuff on the surface. Imagine a lake:
Nice and calm on the surface. Just what we like to see.
But when it gets nasty, this is all that we see:
Waves, turbulence, and uncertainty.
Yet look at what's happening underneath the surface:
My point is that information coming out of Iraq is like a lake. We don't see everything except what is presented to us by the media (the surface information). We don't hear stories of what's happening in other parts of Iraq where there is no insurgency, or the situation is vastly different (the information underneath the surface) than Baghdad or the Anbar province, where most of our casualties have happened.
It's a vicious cycle. The Democrats came to power with help from the liberal-media complex that steered the conversation toward what was happening in four of eighteen Iraqi provinces. They don't dare go into any depth on the rest of Iraq that returning soldiers continue to tell stories about. Good news in Iraq is bad for the anti-war people in Congress.
Leaders should develop their platforms based on their beliefs, then lead the nation in that direction, not base their leadership decisions on opinion polls that are reflective of the surface situation that any idiot with a TV set can see. Leaders should LEAD.
And sooner or later, politicians who don't lead will be Kerry-ized, with the same result as the Bush-Kerry campaign. Based on that point, I don't think we've seen the end of tumultuous turnovers in Congressional power. I think power in Congress is going to change hands a lot in the future.
I speak of opinion polls. Many in Congress are bending like reeds in the wind when they hear what the latest opinion polls are. John Kerry was notorious for this during the 2004 Presidential election, refusing to say where he stood on issues until he saw which direction the wind was blowing first.
Many other Democrats did this too, refusing to say where they stood until they figured out which direction their voters were leaning, then all of a sudden coming up with all kinds of sound bites that their people wanted to hear.
Politicians are well aware of this, but the public needs to learn that opinion polls reflect the feelings of people based on the information that they've been made aware of. In other words, it's stuff on the surface. Imagine a lake:
Nice and calm on the surface. Just what we like to see.But when it gets nasty, this is all that we see:
Waves, turbulence, and uncertainty.Yet look at what's happening underneath the surface:
My point is that information coming out of Iraq is like a lake. We don't see everything except what is presented to us by the media (the surface information). We don't hear stories of what's happening in other parts of Iraq where there is no insurgency, or the situation is vastly different (the information underneath the surface) than Baghdad or the Anbar province, where most of our casualties have happened.It's a vicious cycle. The Democrats came to power with help from the liberal-media complex that steered the conversation toward what was happening in four of eighteen Iraqi provinces. They don't dare go into any depth on the rest of Iraq that returning soldiers continue to tell stories about. Good news in Iraq is bad for the anti-war people in Congress.
Leaders should develop their platforms based on their beliefs, then lead the nation in that direction, not base their leadership decisions on opinion polls that are reflective of the surface situation that any idiot with a TV set can see. Leaders should LEAD.
And sooner or later, politicians who don't lead will be Kerry-ized, with the same result as the Bush-Kerry campaign. Based on that point, I don't think we've seen the end of tumultuous turnovers in Congressional power. I think power in Congress is going to change hands a lot in the future.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Debate Rages Over Use of "Articulate" to Describe Senator Obama: Severe Overreaction in Progress
Prominent African Americans have been going on TV lately, criticizing the use of certain words to describe Senator Obama. Some criticisms of some of the words are acceptable, but others are way off the mark.
Senator Biden got in trouble for describing Obama as the first "mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." Biden ended up apologizing for the remarks, which Rev. Jesse Jackson said were "highly suggestive, but not off-color." Biden realized that he royally screwed up and mended the fences with Obama, which was the right thing to do.
But the debate raged on over the use of the word "articulate" (separate from Senator Biden's unfortunate remarks) which, to some, smacked of condescension. Some have severely overreacted to this word and took to the airwaves last night on FOX News and on CNN. They were angry, and unwilling to listen to other points of view.
If someone says one is very articulate, the proper response is "thank you." It's a compliment, and Senator Obama's speaking style is superior and better versed than many of his fellow politicians, as well as many in the general public for that matter. He's an outstanding public speaker.
But if "articulate" is good enough to describe you, or me, it should be good enough for Senator Obama and the talking heads on TV too.
Senator Biden got in trouble for describing Obama as the first "mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." Biden ended up apologizing for the remarks, which Rev. Jesse Jackson said were "highly suggestive, but not off-color." Biden realized that he royally screwed up and mended the fences with Obama, which was the right thing to do.
But the debate raged on over the use of the word "articulate" (separate from Senator Biden's unfortunate remarks) which, to some, smacked of condescension. Some have severely overreacted to this word and took to the airwaves last night on FOX News and on CNN. They were angry, and unwilling to listen to other points of view.
If someone says one is very articulate, the proper response is "thank you." It's a compliment, and Senator Obama's speaking style is superior and better versed than many of his fellow politicians, as well as many in the general public for that matter. He's an outstanding public speaker.
But if "articulate" is good enough to describe you, or me, it should be good enough for Senator Obama and the talking heads on TV too.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Congress Questions Sending Billions in Cash to Iraq: Vast Sums Missing, But Whose Money Was It?
The Senate questioned former Coalition Provisional Authority governor L. Paul Bremer about a huge amount of money that was sent to the Iraqi capitol prior to the end of the formal occupation and the handover of power to the Iraqi government.
And I'm questioning why the Senate is wasting time on this particular question.
The funds belonged to Iraq and came from Iraq's oil sales and were assets of former President Saddam Hussein's government which were seized following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The legitimate government of Iraq requested the funds be unfrozen and sent over in cash so that they could pay their bills and pay their employees.
The question of how these particular funds were used are an Iraqi problem, not an American one. There are more important matters for our elected officials to focus on.
And I'm questioning why the Senate is wasting time on this particular question.
The funds belonged to Iraq and came from Iraq's oil sales and were assets of former President Saddam Hussein's government which were seized following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The legitimate government of Iraq requested the funds be unfrozen and sent over in cash so that they could pay their bills and pay their employees.
The question of how these particular funds were used are an Iraqi problem, not an American one. There are more important matters for our elected officials to focus on.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Iraqi Government Says One Thousand People Died in Last Week: They Need to Get in Gear
A major crackdown from the Iraqi government cannot come soon enough, as the government there announced 1,000 people died in the last week alone.
That's WITH Iraqi and U.S. military forces in action, with an operational Iraqi government and a supportive U.S. government pushing for the Iraqis to do more to stabilize their country.
It's hard to imagine how bad things would get if U.S. and coalition troops pulled out immediately as some are suggesting.
It might make the slaughter in Rwanda and Darfur look tame by comparison.
"Peace at any cost" is a popular mantra of the anti-war movement, but the cost could be much worse than anyone thinks.
Sunni governments would begin mass shipments of weapons to the Sunni side to help them (as Saudi Arabia has already promised to do if the U.S. leaves too early) kill the Shiites, who vastly outnumber the Sunnis. Iran would support the other side. Both sides would be much more heavily armed than they are now, and more than one nation would send troops in to support their side.
There would be no peace at too high a price if things aren't carefully thought out. But one thing is absolutely certain:
The Iraqi government needs to get in gear and MOVE IT.
That's WITH Iraqi and U.S. military forces in action, with an operational Iraqi government and a supportive U.S. government pushing for the Iraqis to do more to stabilize their country.
It's hard to imagine how bad things would get if U.S. and coalition troops pulled out immediately as some are suggesting.
It might make the slaughter in Rwanda and Darfur look tame by comparison.
"Peace at any cost" is a popular mantra of the anti-war movement, but the cost could be much worse than anyone thinks.
Sunni governments would begin mass shipments of weapons to the Sunni side to help them (as Saudi Arabia has already promised to do if the U.S. leaves too early) kill the Shiites, who vastly outnumber the Sunnis. Iran would support the other side. Both sides would be much more heavily armed than they are now, and more than one nation would send troops in to support their side.
There would be no peace at too high a price if things aren't carefully thought out. But one thing is absolutely certain:
The Iraqi government needs to get in gear and MOVE IT.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
World Appears Headed for Major Bird Flu Incidents: How Far Away Can Mutation Be?
A UK newspaper is reporting that officials are preparing for massive outbreaks of the bird flu in bird populations around the world this season. It makes one wonder how far down the road a mutation is, which would enable the virus to jump from avians into humans.
The story was sparked by an outbreak in Great Britain, where some 150,000+ turkeys are in the process of being slaughtered and the farm where they were at being quarantined by British health authorities.
Nations are being encouraged to prepare for a widespread outbreak of human avian flu, which could cause major disruptions. Every time a human becomes contaminated, the chance of a mutation occurring increases substantially.
The World Organization for Animal Health is monitoring the situation globally, as well as outbreaks of other animal diseases. Their web site is pretty extensive.
The U.S. government has put together it's own web site which is quite good too. It provides links to every state's plans for dealing with an outbreak.
Michigan's plan is here (pdf format). It calls for health screenings at airports for all outbound travelers, isolating all inbound sick travelers, closing public gathering places, limiting non-essential travel and other measures, depending on the severity of an outbreak.
Scary stuff, but it's data everyone should be aware of if there is a pandemic, or a lesser type of outbreak, to prevent a panic.
The story was sparked by an outbreak in Great Britain, where some 150,000+ turkeys are in the process of being slaughtered and the farm where they were at being quarantined by British health authorities.
Nations are being encouraged to prepare for a widespread outbreak of human avian flu, which could cause major disruptions. Every time a human becomes contaminated, the chance of a mutation occurring increases substantially.
The World Organization for Animal Health is monitoring the situation globally, as well as outbreaks of other animal diseases. Their web site is pretty extensive.
The U.S. government has put together it's own web site which is quite good too. It provides links to every state's plans for dealing with an outbreak.
Michigan's plan is here (pdf format). It calls for health screenings at airports for all outbound travelers, isolating all inbound sick travelers, closing public gathering places, limiting non-essential travel and other measures, depending on the severity of an outbreak.
Scary stuff, but it's data everyone should be aware of if there is a pandemic, or a lesser type of outbreak, to prevent a panic.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Republicans Are Learning a Lesson on What Happens When Majority Party Tries to Ban Minority Party Tactics
I seem to recall criticizing the Republican majority for trying to do away with the filibuster and other minority-party rights as the (then) minority Democrats were obstructing several Republican measures and votes on Presidential choices for federal judges.
They're paying for their arrogance as they are now in the minority and the Democrats are stomping all over them. And the only thing the Republicans can do is cry about not having a voice in much of the new legislation that is being ram-rodded through Congress.
Take your medicine, GOP, and learn from your very costly mistakes.
Hopefully if they regain their majority they will remember that they might need the very political weapons that they tried to ban if there's a repeat of the 2006 mid-term elections.
They got thumped on Election Day, and they've been getting thumped by the Democrats who are using Republican tactics to get their way ever since.
Political OWNAGE!!
They're paying for their arrogance as they are now in the minority and the Democrats are stomping all over them. And the only thing the Republicans can do is cry about not having a voice in much of the new legislation that is being ram-rodded through Congress.
Take your medicine, GOP, and learn from your very costly mistakes.
Hopefully if they regain their majority they will remember that they might need the very political weapons that they tried to ban if there's a repeat of the 2006 mid-term elections.
They got thumped on Election Day, and they've been getting thumped by the Democrats who are using Republican tactics to get their way ever since.
Political OWNAGE!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)